gravity wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...

Tom Donaly wrote:

Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.

Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.
--


you raise a good point.

first of all, Tom is wrong. not much of anything can be proven. in
mathematics, you proceed from axioms, which are accepted assumptions. then
you chain things together to result in proof. some proofs are more formal
than others.

Russell and Whitehead attempted to axiomatize mathematics, which resulted in
failure. Russell never did serious math again. Tom should read the work of
Godel, Chatin, and Turing.

in M-theory (strings), there are many things which can't be proven at this
time, and may never be proven. there are some experiments which never can
be performed. this why we say string theory is unfalsifiable.

so toss out this idea of "proof", because it's a just a term that engineers
think they know something about.

and i didn't even get started on epistemology.

Gravity


73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp




If nothing can be proven, then how do you know I'm wrong? Besides,
it isn't a question of whether or not I'm right. It's a question of
whether or not to believe the fantasies of people who are unwilling
to examine Nature. If you've really read and understood the
mathematicians, you'd know that few, or none, of them care the
slightest about the real world. It now seems that some physicists -
the string theorists - have decided to move to Cloud Cuckoo Land
(See Jonathon Swift) so they can live in a nice, comfortable
world of well-paid solipsism, confident that a theory that is
incapable of proof, is also incapable of disproof.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH